bytdwd : The Tel Dan Inscription

Brian,Who would you suggest best represents scholarly consensus on Tel Dan, what is that consensus, and to what extent, if at all, does it differ from that of Lemche? Thanks.

Hi CA,I would say that, from what I have read, Kurt Knoll best represents the consensus.That consensus is as per my post on the other thread: .... that there is some agreement that the best interpretation of ‘bytdwd’ is ‘House of David’, and the most common interpretation of this is to accept that the ‘bytdwd’ is a reference to a political entity that was an enemy of the person that the inscription honours. Then, when secondary textual information is added from the Hebrew Bible, that political entity would be the chiefdom centred in Jerusalem in the 9th century BCE. This is the consensus, IMO.I would say that the only difference between Lemche and Noll is that Lemche admits that 'House of David' as a political entity is a possibility , whilst Noll says it is the best explanation.Brian.

Hi CA,I need to alter my post regrading Lemche and the Tel dan Stele. It appears that Lemche does indeed believe that the Tel Dan inscription is genuine.I recieved this link via an email Lemche In it Lemche states that I stick with what I said at Bar Ilan last December: That my hunch is that the Tel Dan inscription(s)is (are) genuine. This message on ANE is dated after the material that I read that was written by Lemche. It appears that his balanced approach to the subject has resulted in him moving from accepting the inscription as being possibily genuine to a position where he accepts 'House of David' as being the best interpretation.Brian.

Specifically ...

quote:

---

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:50:33 +0200
From: Niels Peter Lemche
Subject: SV: ane bytdwd forgery!????

​

In spite of the way I was cited in BAR a year ago, I stick with what I said at Bar Ilan last December: That my hunch is that the Tel Dan inscription(s) is (are) genuine. I have met people present when inscription A was found and discussed the circumstances of the finding. It is obvious that any proof of it being false will rest on the person who says so. Until now, only one qualified scholars has expressed this opinion, Giovanni Garbini of Rome, in an article in Italian a couple of years ago. I do not have the title here. Maybe somebody can help. Garbini is, of course, known to be rather on the left side of the spectrum, however, his qualifications as a specialist in NW Semitic matters is unquestionable -- if you read Italian.

​

NPL

​

PS: The question of genuineness will have to be separated from the question of interpretation.

---

It appears, in fact, that your current view of Lemche's position is based on a 5 year old reference to a hunch, while your previous view of Lemche's most balance approach is, presumably, based on a prior position (hunch?). Meanwhile, your other exemplar of balanced approach, Frederick Cryer ...

quote:

---

... raised questions as to the authenticity of Fragment A in his artical, 'On the Recently Discovered "House of David" Inscription', though he stated that he did not believe the fragment was a forgery. However, at some stage after the publication of Fragment B, Cryer changed his opinion and regarded all three fragments as forgeries.

​

- see The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation by George Athas (pg. 23)

---

So, is the "balanced approach" Lemche's hunch or Cryer's 'unequivocal' dismissal?As for ... Do you truly consider this "a major problem", and would you maintain that this is the consensus view? Or was this "I'm sure you know ..." offering simply window dressing inserted for pedantic effect while cautioning us all to guard against maximalist enthusiasm?[edited to correct link and change "5 decade" to "5 year" - CA][This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-31-2004]

What 50 year old hunch? Yes, I can only comment on what I have read, I cannot comment on every single article that has ever been written on the inscription. Well your link isn’t working.Do you have any references to when Cryer changed his opinion from believing that the fragments were not forged to his current stance that they are all forged? The short quote from Athas you provided doesn’t provide adequate information about Cryer’s stance. Thanks.Also, people can have a balanced approach and arrive at a different conclusion, but it wil be interesting to see where Cryer has published his view that the inscriptions have been forged. I have yet to see where Cryer has stated ’unequivocally’ that these have been forged, so I will reserve judgement until then. Yes. No it isn’t the consensus view. Do I need to agree with the consensus view? It was inserted because I am sure you know.Brian.

According to "Old Testament Abstracts" Vol19 No.3 October 1996 ,E.A.Knauf,A.de Pury,Th.Romer "BaytDawid..[long French title]BN 72[1993]60-69 say"Biran and Naveh read this word as BAYTDAWID on philological grounds,though this reading can be disputed.DWD could be vocalized as DOD which is probably the name of a local deity."Summarizing another article by E.A.Knauf "Der Haus David...[long German title]BK 51 [1996] the abstactor says "Since the inscription dates from the end of the 9th century B.C.E.,the evolution of Judah from a tribal confederation into a "modern territorial nation"had not been completed at that time."BK and BN refer to 2 German periodicals.Is this any help to your discussion?

Hi Jes, thanks for your reply.We had actually began this discussion on another thread, and on that thread I had referred to this reading of the inscription. Here Brian

I was considering both "5 year" and "half decade" and blew it. I've corrected the error. I have likewise corrected the link, though it's simply a link to the book store. According to Athas:

quote:

---

Due to the stone's breakage, many faces of the stone have been exposed. In some places, chipping of these exposed faces has occurred. THe most norable appears in the surface exposed at the top of the fragment and is clearly visible from the side of the fragment. These Chips were understood by Cryer to denote deliberate chisel marks. As a result, Cryer denounced the fragments as a forgery at a postgraduate seminar for students of Copenhagen University. (Unfortunately, Cryer never published the evidence for these claims.) His reasoning was that if the fragments were genuine, there would have been no reason to use a chisel on the newly exposed surface after its breakage and during its transference to its secondary position in a wall at tha outer edge of the piazza. Therefore, a chisel mark could only have been made during the carving of the inscription and so the stone must have been broken prior to the carving of the inscription and so the stone must have been broken prior to the carving of the text. Inevitably, this would mean that the fragment could not claim to be part of an original whole inscription, thereby rendering it a forgery.

​

Cryer came to his conclusion of questionable authenticity after having published four articles on the Tel Dan fragments. Prior to his claim of forgery, Cryer had advocated seeing the fragments as two separate inscriptions. His opinion was swayed after seeing the fragments on display at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. According to Cryer, The nature of these chips as chisel marks was confirmed by an independent engraver who looked over them.

​

- pg. 70

---

Our "balanced approach" Cryer seems to have achieved an early balance without taking the time to visually inspect the fragments, only to rebalance his views later and present them, as any good scholar would, as an unpublished presentation at a postgraduate seminar - lucky Copenhagen. And, while Cryer should, I suppose, be commended for actually looking at Fragments, this rebalanced approach is not without problems. Athas continues:

quote:

---

Unfortunately for Cryer, there is nothing about the chips in question which requires us to see any of them as the result of chisel blows. Very close examination of these chips on teh exposed surface demonstrates that there are no telling traces of chisel at their deepest point. This would be expected if, as Cryer claims, the chips had been made by a chisel. Rather, most appear to be naturally made chips, while the deepest of them had probably been created by collision with some type of jagged edge, probably that of another rock. Thus, we expect them to been sustained when the stone was destroyed or, more likely, when it was repositioned in the wall at the perimeter of the piazza.

​

< ... >

​

Cryer's claims of forgery also call into question the integrity of the excavation team at Tel Dan, led by Biran. If the fragment was a forgery, we must posit one of two theories. Either the forgery was the work of the excavation team itself who have since falsified information in order to uphold an image of authenticity, or the fragment was planted at Tel Dan by an individual (or individuals) with exceptional epigraphical, palaeographical, philological and historical expertise.

​

Neither of these positions can be maintained with any sense of sobriety.

​

- pg. 70-71

---

While I tend to prefer Finkelstein over Dever, it seems to me that the "most balanced" approach of the so-called minimalists too often resemble bias in search of justificaton.As for your earlier comment: I fully agree. At the same time, I view the Tanakh as, among other things, an attempt at painting the story of a people. As such, it should be used, where applicable and with caution, to inform tentative conclusions in the absence of unequivocal proof.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-31-2004]